yeah, mr h...as usual, is right on the money. he got labelled as a horror writer in the beginning...he was warned he'd be labelled that way...didn't care...and was considered a horror writer ever since...but only to those that didn't read him.

i think some readers don't even give him a chance because of that. he not only writes great, great books. but he is mayhap ( ) the finest writer of character development i've ever read.

and i am one to opine, that he might be at or near the top of his game right now.

I want to tell her that I love her a lot, but I got to get a belly full of wine.

I never said Mr. King was horror, I was simply respoding to G4's comment that she doesn't like horror, but I see your point, H. I'm a big Ray Bradbury fan and it really irks me that he has been branded a sci-fi writer lo these long decades now even though it couldn't be farther from the truth. In fact, King and Bradbury are actually fairly similar, in that both writers are pretty eclectic and skip around different genres easily.

true that, both of you...it does irk me when people judge the book of king by only one of his many covers...much in the same way it does when there are peons who crinkle their noses at our dear paulie and screech "ooo...silly love songs.?? he's too (blah-fill in the blank-blah) for me !'

...and we all know that type, right ??

i have to whole-heartedly agree about his recent work, chris...excepting DT5/6/7 (which i feel are far, far inferior to the massively wonderous DT2/3/4...not to mention DT1), the man is on a veritable roll of absolutely great writing: i can remembr back when 'bag of bones' was released, the inimitable charlie rose was having a round table discussion on his pbs show with book critics about the best books of that year. near the end, rose asked if there was anyone they hadn't covered, someone either new or surprising..and one of the guys immediately popped up with king and that book...he also went out of his way to mention almost all the same points you made, chris, not just about that book, but all of kings writings: especially that bit about characterizations...and the entire table petty much agreed, as i remember.....

'under the dome' was one of his best ever...and '11/22/63' was nearly as good...

good that you grokked my point, E..a writer king has oft mentioned as an influence is richard matheson, an author of great and varying style a well...very much a contemporary of the great bradbury

Okay. He WAS a horror writer in the beginning but is not now? My reading tends to the lighter stuff. Agatha Christie, Carole Nelson Douglas, Emily Brightwell. All mysteries. I also read Rita Mae Brown, mystery. All very light and easy reading. Nothing heavy. Nothing to keep my vivid imagination working to keep this insomniac awake at night.

I apologize to those who love Stephen King and his writings. I meant nothing by it. I was going by his earlier works?

G4B, his first few books were scary. and ever since he has been labelled as a horror writer. but he's written in other genres. in fact, one of my (semi) recent faves...lisey's story...i would actually characterize as a love story.

he does still write some scary stories. that just isn't all he does. it just happens to be what he's known for. as mr h, pointed out correctly. again, it's a lot like many people calling paulie's music "just silly love songs". does he write them? sure. is that all he does? hells to the no-no.

and we aren't picking on anyone for thinking this stereotype. it is a stereotype...and there has to be a wee bit of truth in it for the stereotype to be there...right?

listen...at this point...i'm just tickled to have a conversation about reading books by a bunch of book readers. we're a dying breed.

and a side note to mr h. i think your opinion regarding the DT series is the popular one. and while i do not neccessarily disagree...i do enjoy, rather immensely...watching his writing style mature thru the years...and book by book. the earlier books may have a bit better, but i think he was a better writer when he was done. and i don't recall if we ever dicussed it...the ending...(not giving anythind away) some loved it, some hated it. i belong to the former...believing it was the only way it could have ended. with an almost biblical search for redemption. i was one of the few who re-read the series. and there were tons of clues it would end that very way. you just didn't know it til it happened.

I want to tell her that I love her a lot, but I got to get a belly full of wine.

i positively love 1-4: they are, very easily, the best writing he has ever done..and the main section of 4...the tale told..the single best writing he has ever done...but...

and you knew there would be one of those, right ?i feel that, if you read the interviews he gave about 4, up until it came out, he was adamant that he would not make most DT fans happy, as he had the story done, and it did not include anything relating directly to DT3...just that middle section of 4...but that was what he felt was right...that is what his muse told him...and that was what he was going to do...

and when he got back to the 'finish' of 3...he would do so only when that little voice said 'ok, now, where were we...'

and he caved in...flat out caved in...and, to me, that is exactly what the preface and the afterword part feels like in 4...tacked on, not part of the 'real' DT voice he had so magnificently tapped into...that mad it all so special...

and that fake voice, to me, is the one that wrote 5/6/7: they all fell more like a writer, who'd just had a scare..was feeling the pressure, took a look at his notes, and just plugging away..not the effortless, wonderous, magical feeling of being swept away that made 2/3/4/ the very best of the best...for me...all of 5/6/7 feel...pedestrian

it was not the exact ending : i knew pretty much what would happen to each character...at least in the vaguest way...and i'd kinda, sorta guessed something of the last bit...but it was the way the each and every moment of the last three 'felt' (where's jjs when i don't need him ? ) that disturbed me..they just didn't have that 'feel' that the entire series had had up to 4...and king has even alluded to something like this..he's mentioned that he felt he had to finish it...rather than where he stood about it before the accident...which was, basically, i don't care how long it takes, until that special DT muse says 'dance', we don't dance...until that moment, we all wait

but...i do know i have to re-read those 3...not that i am at all looking forward to it: in fact, i was so distressed at how i felt about 5...i did not read 6 until 2 weeks before 7 came out just so would not have to reread either !

but,that is just me...i know many like those last 3...that's fine...i don't call people names....or not buy 'em a brewski, or something (actually...i probably feel the poor blokes need the extra help...must all be cubs fans...y'know..big bears and all..SHARDIK ! )

g4...don't go all about getting your panties in a bunch...you darn well know exactly how you'd get if someone if some idjit got tiffy with you about either the beatles being nothing but an overrated boy band, paul being nothing nore that 'silly love songs'...or some other snivelling uninformed comment that would literally make your blood boil...

you would, in no uncertain terms, set them straight...probably use some of that wicked native american indian torture stuff until they cried uncle...or just cried

i'm sure every true fan of any artist has that moment when they run across someone who just has no clue...

I stand corrected. Your damn right I would!! I would take someone out back and pound the crap out of them for saying something negative about my boy and I have threatened to do it but the other person chickened out. And no Native American torture techinques here. I would use good old fashioned Detroit wup ass on the slime ball.

So to all those Stephen King fanatics out there. My apologies to you. I didn't mean any harm. I just don't read Stephen King and I probably never will.

i will concede that the first few books were more cohesive. more planned. more...continual (that a word?)

and the last few seemed more...individually written.

another side note...(does it matter? who reads this stuff anyway) i was at the chicago museum of natural history... and they had this egyptian hieroglyphic stone with it's translation...it (the translations) went on about ka (fate) and gan...so...

and i was at a convention recently in green bay wi. the convention center was attached to an indian casino. right in front of the entryway was this statue featuring 4 animals surrounding a water fountain. the animals represented the proper balance of the world. there was a turtle...and a bear...and a couple of other animals that slip my mind at this moment...point is these are old...old thoughts and beliefs. not that it lends validity to the story...but it was familiarly fascinating.

you know we may as well be speaking greek, right? (or is that geek?)

and whew...this being st patrick's day and all...isn't wup ass on a slime ball an irish corned beef dish? just asking

I want to tell her that I love her a lot, but I got to get a belly full of wine.

no worries, g4, and no apology needed: you clearly are of both a discerning, and an open mind...after all, you gave KOTB a fair shot, right ?i'm well aware no harm was meant, and, trust me, none was taken...

as far as actual fisticuffs, well...at my rather advanced age (uh..that's somewhat over the rainbow ), i probably would not get too violent w/such a person...lest i take the very real chance of total embarrassment and get my booty kicked unceremoniously !

besides, i think civility alone would (and in this case did) dictate that i should at least point out (rather decidedly) that the individual might be mistaken...and hopefully i'd be polite (but firm) in making my firm point.

now...if said cretin would make like a politician and not listen to reason and sanity, well...they, at the very least, should easily expect that they would not be getting my vote for anything anytime soon

king has often mentioned, big c, being one of faith...but it seems, from all i recall, he has more often than not indicated that his thinking on all this may more porous and open to a greater world of ideas about god than too, too many have these days.